,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
I have thoughts about this, including (though not restricted) to this point: If our only path forward on the environment is to come up with a plan that Trump voters will sign off on, we're screwed. 
The very next paragraph, let's note:
1) Good; but
2) This is the bare-bones minimum of a start to a responsible policy on climate change. This is table stakes. It's not leadership, it merely catches us up to the rest of the world
3) And you've *already* lost Trump voters.
1) Good; but
2) This is the bare-bones minimum of a start to a responsible policy on climate change. This is table stakes. It's not leadership, it merely catches us up to the rest of the world
3) And you've *already* lost Trump voters.
Leadership is going where it's necessary to go before it's obvious. It's getting out ahead and bringing people along.
It's too late for that, but at the very least we shouldn't look for somebody who's leading off by asking permission.
It's too late for that, but at the very least we shouldn't look for somebody who's leading off by asking permission.
Next, let's say of this:
1) Good!
2) Again, absolutely minimum table stakes. Any candidate who won't say this is immediately disqualified.
3) And again you've lost the Trump voters.
1) Good!
2) Again, absolutely minimum table stakes. Any candidate who won't say this is immediately disqualified.
3) And again you've lost the Trump voters.
We have to do this without the support of Trump voters, who refuse to recognize the danger nor face the necessity of facing it.
Luckily we can, by appealing to people who recognize both.
You don't appeal to such people by leading off with a half-defeated posture.
Luckily we can, by appealing to people who recognize both.
You don't appeal to such people by leading off with a half-defeated posture.
I agree with this. People respond to leadership. To bold positive statements of intent. To big vision.
Not to middle ground.
Not to middle ground.
